I was disappointed to learn this a few years back, along with learning that the Indian/Hindu caste system mirrors white supremacist ideals: the darkest people are in the lowest "untouchable" caste, the lightest people in the highest "Brahman" caste. Black people are also declared untouchables, a disgrace for Brahmans to be associated with.

I mention this not to demonize Indian people, but to make the point that Ghandi's beliefs come from a specific religious and cultural context. This kind of zenophobia in built into many cultures, maybe these beliefs evolved over time to preserve the cultural "integrity" of that group (or better, klan). Regardless, we have long way to go before racism up a floats away the way many people think it has.

I know East Africans who say they don't trust Indians because they are prejudiced. I must admit, I am wary of many. These historical pit fights between people of color are sad - but are set up from 'old' European capatilists.
Keep it in perspective. One - Indian culture is caste based. Two Black-Indie Brown strife has always existed ANYwhere the British had both Africans and Indians. Ghandi served in the British Army in Africa(a common post for Indian soldiers) where they subjugated Blacks.
Three - the British Slave trade was also apart of this culture-war. Africans were 'natural slaves'. When African slavery and slave trade was abolished in the new world, the need for cheap labour didn't go away. What idea did they come up with - Indentured Slavery of Indians. They served a term (variable number of years) and then they were free. Indians weren't kidnapped and forced on boats, they left voluntarily in droves. They were beaten and forced to work, they worked hard because they would soon have freedom and opportunity in a new land - Africa, the Caribbean, or South America. And in places where both co-exist, the Indians are often wealthier, own more land, and have more political power than Blacks. Often tis idea of natural vs indentured slavery is brought up to explain the class differences. Four - During British colonialism, India adopted so much of the British ways of thinking and customs.

You should read the book. It is just proof that it is dangerous to idolize human beings as heroes, when they are at best, flawed ideologues. We have to find the qualities we admire in ourselves and in the people closest to us.

As an Indian, I have a couple things to say. The skin color does not necessarily determine caste, its more based on reincarnation (how you were in your previous life)..for instance, I'm considered a Brahmin, but I'm fairly dark skinned, being a South Indian. That being said, Indians, in general, are EXTREMELY racist. Not just Gandhi. Go to any college campus in the US, you will find them in groups, self segregating themselves..I have several black friends, and these large groups glare at my friend when we walk on campus. Not me, but him. You would expect more from a group of people who were brutally colonized for a few centuries. They also stare if I walk with a white kid. They're extremely ethnocentric and nationalistic. Its absolutely unforgivable, religious background or not. I never have been very fond of Indian culture in general, and this is one of the major reasons why.

Hello,
I'm grateful for your comment. I admire many of the lessons which Gandhi taught, but also oppose many of his stands.
I co-edit Peacework Magazine, and put together an issue on 100 years of Gandhian Nonviolent Action a couple of years ago (http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/all-issues/issue-368-september-2006).
One of the articles I wrote for that issue, entitled "A Pacifist Critique of Gandhi" http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pacifist-critique-gandhi, reads in part:
"To make a hero out of someone dehumanizes them almost as much as demonizing them does. It serves no one to turn Mohandas Gandhi into a plaster saint (or a stone ganesh).

Many of Gandhi’s statements and actions were reprehensible, some of which are mentioned elsewhere in this issue (such as the treatment of his children, see page 10). There isn’t space for a full critique, but a few themes are important to mention. One of Gandhi’s contributions to nonviolent thought is the idea that a true dedication to nonviolence requires striving for the complicated truth. As we appreciate Mohandas Gandhi’s many contributions to the development of nonviolent struggle, we can’t, if we are to appraise his legacy honestly, ignore his faults as well."
As you focused on Gandhi's racism, I wrote:

"Gandhi often utilized racist arguments to advance the cause of Indians in South Africa. For example, addressing a public meeting in Bombay on September 26, 1896, following his return from South Africa, Gandhi said, “Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” (Collected Works, Volume II, page 74). The word kaffir (or keffir) is a derogatory term used in South Africa for native Africans. Gandhi never, as far as I’ve read, publicly opposed the racist oppression of black Africans in South Africa."

In Peace,
Sam Diener